Feature Article: H
ow the approach to biodiversity offsetting
in Victoria, Australia, is changing and its
potential relevance to England
How the approach to
biodiversity offsetting in Victoria,
Australia, is changing and its
potential relevance to England
Andrew Cross MCIEEM
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd
Justin Sullivan
Brett Lane & Associates
Karen Colebourn MCIEEM
Ecological Planning & Research Ltd
The proposals for biodiversity
offsetting in England have
drawn upon a now obsolete
system used for more than
10 years in Victoria, Australia.
Ecologists from the UK and
Victoria have reviewed some
of the recent changes to the
Victorian system, the reasons
behind them and whether these
issues may be relevant to what
is being proposed for England.
The State of Victoria has had legislation
in place to control broad-scale clearance
of native vegetation since 1989. From
2002, detailed guidance for controlling
what vegetation can be cleared and the
methods for mitigation, including providing
compensation by way of biodiversity
offsets, were set out in the Native
Vegetation Management Framework
for Action (NVMF) and its supporting
documents. Following 10 years of
biodiversity offsetting and a consultation
process in 2012, Victoria has substantially
revised its approach to how it offsets. The
approach set out in the NVMF has been
withdrawn and replaced by a new system
set out in the 2013 Permitted clearing of
native vegetation – Biodiversity Assessment
Guidelines (see Further Reading).
Plains grassland with blue devil Eryngium
ovinum and kangaroo grass Themeda
triandra. An important habitat occurring in
areas threatened by expansion of the western
suburbs of Melbourne. The way in which
this vegetation is protected or cleared is the
subject of the revised protocols. © Andy Cross
Background
As part of an exchange programme
between Ecological Planning & Research
Ltd, an ecological consultancy based in
the south of England, and Brett Lane &
Associates, a similar ecological consultancy
based in Melbourne, Victoria, two of the
authors of this article spent a month at
each other’s consultancy in 2013. During
this time, systems set up to conserve
biodiversity in both Victoria and England
were compared and contrasted.
42
Victoria’s 2002-2013 Native
Vegetation Management
Framework for Action (NVMF)
The NVMF was in place between 2002
and 2013 and was written in the context
of Victoria’s State policies addressing,
amongst others, sustainable development,
economic growth and biodiversity. It
was intended to cover all aspects of the
management of native vegetation ‘…
from a whole of catchment perspective’,
taking into account all relevant land
management and land use activities
including forestry, agriculture, nature
conservation and development.
The NVMF established ‘… the strategic
direction for the protection, enhancement
and revegetation of native vegetation
across the State.’ The primary goal for
native vegetation management was ‘A
reversal, across the entire landscape, of
the long-term decline in the extent and
quality of native vegetation, leading to a
Net Gain’.
Included in the NVMF were provisions
and a methodology for compensating,
in the form of offsetting, for the loss of
native vegetation should its clearance
be necessary, whether it be for forestry,
agriculture or development. In considering
the balance between the need to conserve
native vegetation in situ and taking a
decision to permit its clearance, the
following three-step process was applied:
1. Avoid adverse impacts, particularly
through vegetation clearance;
Directions consultation from both private
and public organisations and from
individuals, covering a wide range of
issues. Whilst some wanted the regulations
controlling the clearance of native
vegetation maintained or strengthened,
others raised concerns with regard to
implementing the system, for example:
2. If impacts cannot be avoided, minimise
impacts through expert input to project
design or management; and
• a complex system to apply, leading to time
and financial costs;
3. Identify appropriate offset options.
• lack of transparency in the system;
The NVMF set out criteria for offsetting
decisions and established a market-place
concept – the ‘BushBroker’ – to facilitate
the offset system. The unit of trade in the
market place was the ‘habitat hectare’,
which was a ‘site-based measure of quality
and quantity of native vegetation that is
assessed in the context of the relevant
native vegetation type’.
• inconsistent decisions;
Reasons for Changing the NVMF
• the logistics of overseeing a scattered
network of offset sites.
In the course of applying and developing
the NVMF, it became clear that whilst there
were undoubted successes in conserving
native vegetation, via both impact
avoidance and biodiversity offsetting, there
were also problems. Policies relating to
the NVMF were subjected to a number
of reviews that identified these issues.
In September 2012, the Government
of Victoria issued a consultation paper Future Directions for Native Vegetation
in Victoria – Review of Victoria’s native
vegetation permitted clearing regulations.
• auditing of the offset system not
comprehensive;
• protected/conserved areas of vegetation
occurred as isolated patches with no
strategic conservation or restoration aim;
• disconnection between the location of the
development and the location of an offset;
and
Victoria’s response:
withdrawing the NVMF and
replacing it with the Biodiversity
Assessment Guidelines
New guidelines were published in May
2013 as the Reforms to Victoria’s native
vegetation permitted clearing regulations.
Amendments to the Victoria Planning
Provisions and were implemented in
December 2013. As part of the Reforms,
the NVMF was withdrawn and replaced by
the Permitted clearing of native vegetation
– Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines. The
supporting documents for these Guidelines
are in various stages of preparation at this
stage of the transition.
The following reforms are considered
significant:
Clarification of the objective of the
permitted clearance regulations: the
relationship between Net Gain and No
Net Loss
This document highlighted the following
areas of concern:
• the objective of the permitted clearing
regulations was unclear and not well
understood;
• the permitted clearing regulations did
not adequately focus on biodiversity
outcomes;
• the permitted clearing regulations had not
been designed to adequately address risk
and proportionality;
• the offset market was subject to high
transaction costs, volatile prices and an
inability to meet demand for some offsets;
• greater use of strategic planning was
needed; and
• compliance and enforcement processes
needed to be improved.
There were 202 responses to the Future
Temperate grassland on the Victoria Volcanic Plain. Species here include bluebell Wahlenbergia
sp., billy buttons Craspedia sp., pink bindweed Convulvulus angustissimus, blue devil Eryngium
ovinum, and wallaby grass Austrodanthonia sp. Also present are non-native species such as
perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne and brome Bromus sp. This grassland, well-managed
though unfortunately somewhat isolated from other areas of native grassland, is on a registered
offset site on farmland west of Melbourne. © Andy Cross
43
Feature Article: H
ow the approach to biodiversity offsetting
in Victoria, Australia, is changing and its
potential relevance to England (contd)
The new objective underpinning the
guidance for clearance of native vegetation
is that there should be ‘no net loss in the
contribution made by native vegetation
to Victoria’s biodiversity’. It is explained as
follows: ‘This ensures that while individual
landholders are required to compensate for
their impacts, the community as a whole
bears the cost of achieving ‘net gains’.
Further, ‘This change seeks to address the
confusion between ‘net gain’ and ‘no net
loss’ and confirms the role permitted clearing
plays in achieving biodiversity objectives.’
Some concerns about the
reformed offsetting process
in Victoria
Cutting the costs of defining and
valuing native vegetation
No net loss vs net gain
The aims here were to:
• reduce costs (and improve accuracy in
measuring the biodiversity value of native
vegetation) through improvements in
mapping and modelling approaches;
• make the site assessment method more
transparent; and
• provide greater certainty for landowners by
improved information provision upfront.
The key outcome of this reform has been
an increased reliance on a ‘master’ map in
the identification of potential impacts. This
master map – the Biodiversity Interactive
Map (available at Victoria’s Department
of Environment and Primary Industries
website http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/
about-depi/interactive-maps) is based on
information largely drawn from remote
sensing, interpretation and modelling.
One consequence of this particular
reform is that the need for site survey and
professional assessment has been much
reduced (see modelled maps and risk
pathways below).
Ensuring offsets provide appropriate
compensation
The aims here were to:
• provide protection for native vegetation
of high biodiversity value by ensuring
that offsets are appropriately tailored to
mitigate the impacts of removal;
• create incentives for landowners to offset
in areas that are strategically more likely to
deliver biodiversity value; and
• reduce costs to landowners by
providing simplified and more flexible
offset arrangements for low impact
clearance, which makes up the majority
of permit applications.
44
vegetation. There are three risk-based
pathways for assessing an application:
low, moderate or high. The pathway is
determined by two factors, outlined
below and shown in Table 1.
The reforms present a new direction
and one that is only just beginning to
be applied. However, some immediate
concerns are:
Extent – the area in hectares proposed
to be removed, or the number of
scattered trees.
• No Net Loss as an aspiration;
• reliance on modelling for decision
making; and
• the consequences of the low-risk pathway
for ecological impact assessment.
Whilst the reforms have clarified and
amended the objectives, the shift in
emphasis from net gain to no net loss
seems to mark a lowering of aspirations for
the future of native vegetation in Victoria.
Modelled maps
Following four months of implementation
of the reforms in Victoria, concern has
arisen over the use of modelled data
to predict the likely consequences
for threatened species habitats. The
Biodiversity Interactive Map is at the core
of processes related to the conservation
of biodiversity in Victoria. There are
serious concerns about the accuracy and
resolution of the map and the data on
which it is based.
Location – the modelled likelihood that
removing native vegetation in a location
will have an impact on a rare or threatened
species. The vegetation in Victoria is
allocated to risk level A, B or C, with
location A considered to present the lowest
risk of potential harm to rare or threatened
species and C the highest. 90% of Victoria
has been modelled as ‘Location A’.
The risk-based pathway is determined by
combining the two factors as set out in
the Permitted clearing of native vegetation
– Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (see
Further Reading).
The Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines
set out the type of assessment needed
for each risk pathway to support an
application to remove native vegetation
or scattered trees. The key split occurs
between the Low and the Moderate/
High pathways.
The introduction of risk-pathways as
part of the decision-making process
For a Low-risk pathway, no field verification
of the map is needed and compensation
may be provided by applying a standard
offset process. What this means in
practice is that for applications to remove
up to 1 ha of native vegetation and/or
scattered trees, there is now, in more than
90% of Victoria, no requirement for an
appropriately qualified ecologist to visit
the site or even take part in the impact
assessment process.
A risk-based approach has been
introduced to the decision-making process
for permitting the clearance of native
A serious cause for concern (although it is
too early to provide evidence) is that, given
the relatively low resolution of the model,
There have already been several cases
where there have been reliable records of a
threatened species at a site, but which the
modelled map fails to identify as high risk.
These instances bring into question the
accuracy and reliability of the map as a key
tool for assessment.
Table 1. Matrix showing risk-based pathways for remnant patches of native vegetation and
scattered trees in Victoria (see Tables 3 and 4 in the Victoria Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines)
Extent (remnant patches)
Location A
Location B
Location C
< 0.5 hectare
Low
Low
High
≥ 0.5 hectare and < 1 hectare
Low
Moderate
High
≥ 1 hectare
Moderate
High
High
< 15 scattered trees
Low
Moderate
High
≥ 15 scattered trees
Moderate
High
High
Extent (scattered trees)
impact predicted to be of greater than
local significance (per CIEEM’s Guidelines
for Ecological Impact Assessment) could
be considered inappropriate for offsetting
unless there were no alternatives and
the proposal was desirable for imperative
reasons of over-riding public interest.
Delay in identification of
appropriate offsets
In the original market-based system in
Victoria, there was no strategy behind the
offset system that could deliver appropriate
biodiversity objectives. In practice, trying to
find and secure offsets in the market place
often led to extensive delays to applications
as well as added costs.
At the settlement’s edge. If the town expands into the adjacent farmland, the risk-pathway
could determine whether an ecologist need visit the site as part of an ecological impact
assessment. © Andy Cross
Large old river red-gum with active wedge-tailed
eagle nest. Large old gum trees (several hundred
years old) are irreplaceable in the landscape and
provide important habitat for rare and important
fauna species. © Justin Sullivan
and doubts about the data underpinning the
model, small (but possibly important) areas
of native vegetation with high potential for
rare or threatened species could now be
missed in the application process.
Lessons to be learnt from
Victoria’s experience and the
relevance to Defra’s Green Paper
on Biodiversity Offsetting
An expectation to offset
The original NVMF offset system proved
difficult to apply in many instances. Whilst
there will have been a myriad of reasons
for these difficulties, the situation was
exacerbated by the applicants’ expectation
that ecological constraints could always
be dealt with by offsetting. As with the
Green Paper proposal for England, the
process in Victoria required applicants
to avoid and minimise impacts prior to
considering offsetting. Due, however, to
the lack of direction about when it was
appropriate, offsetting became the default
option, even in situations in which an
offset was unlikely to be able to provide
a suitable alternative habitat, such as the
loss of veteran gum trees.
An English biodiversity offsetting
system could avoid this problem by
setting a residual impact level above
which offsetting would not normally be
appropriate. For example, a post-mitigation
45
Feature Article: H
ow the approach to biodiversity offsetting
in Victoria, Australia, is changing and its
potential relevance to England (contd)
Further Reading
There are undoubtedly many other lessons
that we can learn from Victoria’s experience of
offsetting. If you wish to investigate further, a
good place to start would be the Department of
Environment and Primary Industries Permitted
clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity
assessment guidelines available at:
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0011/198758/Permitted-clearing-of-nativevegation-Biodiversity-assessmentguidelines.pdf
About the Authors
Spiny rice-flower Pimelea spinescens a threatened grassland species that is endemic to the
Plains grasslands of Victoria. It is possible under the current system in Victoria that if removal
of a small area of native vegetation (i.e. <1 ha) is proposed, impacts to such threatened species
may not be considered. © Andy Cross
This could be avoided in England by
requiring the strategic planning of
biodiversity offsets based on Local
Nature Maps or similar.
Currently, the proposals for England do
not require offsets to be located close to
the area affected.
Failure of offsets to deliver
anticipated biodiversity benefits
The difficult logistics of monitoring
the effectiveness of a scattered
network of offset sites
Due to the difficulty of finding appropriate
offset sites in Victoria, those selected are
often scattered, with no connection to other
similar sites. This limits their biodiversity
potential. Again, the utilisation of Local
Nature Maps to plan effective offsets in
England could overcome this issue.
In the absence of a strategic plan for
offsets across Victoria under the NVMF, the
offsets are often scattered and monitoring
them is costly and time-consuming.
In some cases, offset sites have been
neglected and the biodiversity objectives
have been missed.
Distance between impact
and compensation
Under the old offset system in Victoria,
offsets to compensate for the removal
of Plains Grassland (a native grassland
community) on Melbourne’s fringe
were often only readily achievable in far
western Victoria, possibly several hundred
kilometres from the clearance site. In such
cases, neither the developer who had
funded the offset, nor the local community,
experienced or recognised any benefit from
the offset.
46
If offsetting is to succeed in delivering
biodiversity objectives in England,
competent authorities must be clear about
those objectives and the system must
facilitate adequate monitoring and review.
Andrew Cross is a
senior ecologist and
botanist at Ecological
Planning & Research
(EPR) and has 15
years’ experience in
botanical surveys and
impact assessments.
Contact Andy at:
[email protected]
Justin Sullivan is a
senior ecologist and
project manager
at Brett Lane &
Associates (BL&A)
based in Melbourne,
Victoria. Justin
has been at BL&A
since 2008 and has
undertaken numerous impact assessments
across Victoria, many of which included
biodiversity offsetting, under the NVMF.
Since the start of 2014, Justin has been
advising on applications to clear native
vegetation in accordance with the native
vegetation clearing reforms.
Contact Justin at:
[email protected]
Karen Colebourn is
Managing Director
at EPR and an
Independent Member
of CIEEM’s Advisory
Forum.
Contact Karen at:
karencolebourn
@epr.uk.com